The power of augury operating via dhammaniyāma, prophetic dreams, earthquakes occurring at pivotally auspicious moments, marvels wrought by saccakiriyās, etc. are all impeccably Buddhist, even if they happen not to find favour with protestant Buddhists of the drearily modernist sort.

If you will forgive me to propose a question to serve most-likely as a starting point for the defences of others: all of these things above that you specify, "prophetic dreams, earthquakes occurring at pivotally auspicious moments, marvels wrought [...]" are regular features, very very regular, of Mahāyānasūtrāṇi. Does that make them "true"? I suspect not. What makes these instances true and "properly Buddhist", vs Mahāyānasūtrāṇi?

she also warned me not to go down to the river at night because of the ghosts.....

For example: I have heard that the standard advice for when one is being visited by a ghost is to send it to an accomplished practitioner. I apply it. My father sometimes has nightmares in which he speaks in his sleep. Usually, he's being tormented by someone and he is crying out "Let me go!" I go to his room and I ask the ghost to go to Ajahn Lee, for example. It works. Without waking, my father calms down and goes back to sleep. Otherwise, the nightmares continue and I can't stop them unless I forcibly wake my father up; upon which he is very distressed.

My boyfriend saw a ghost once. She was performed weird unknown rites involving muttering over my body. He tried to help me, but was suffering from sleep paralysis. Eventually, he managed to utter the phrase "help me" and the demon retreated from me, went around the room, and disappeared before the icon of Saint Sarah that hangs in our room. How does that relate? The demon was obviously a "ghost" in the sense that is was a "dead person". Did the demon "exist"? Or was it a fabrication of his dreams?

The Venerable Vasubandhu, in his Vimśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi, argues that the "all" is "mind-only" based on, amongst other things, that dreams are identical to waking reality. Are dreams identical to waking reality?

The Venerable Vasubandhu, in his Vimśatikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi, argues that the "all" is "mind-only" based on, amongst other things, that dreams are identical to waking reality. Are dreams identical to waking reality?

1. That is a question asked while taking common sense realism for granted.
2. It's a matter of how one defines terms.

. Some say that only by discarding falsehoods do we progress. Perhaps the Buddha, or more accurately "the Buddhisms", gives us a few extra falsehoods, like "the path" itself, to help us.

But that's just holding up common sense realism as the highest and unassailable epistemic standard. If one is going to do that, then why bother with Buddhism?

Perhaps some hold, instead of common sense realism, Buddhavacana as the "highest and unassailable epistemic standard". The path is not asaṃskṛta, neither in Chinese nor Pāli. It is in Sanskrit, though, if anyone still entertains Sarvāstivāda sympathies.

No, it is not false perhaps it is a coincidence.
It may be something similar to Moses dividing the red sea story.
I believe in that story. Because I have been to a place you can walk to an island when it is low tides.

No, it is not false perhaps it is a coincidence.
It may be something similar to Moses dividing the red sea story.
I believe in that story. Because I have been to a place you can walk to an island when it is low tides.

At the same time, that is a very modernist reading of that story. Traditionally, Moses parted the Red Sea, not the Reed Sea. The Red Sea is much larger and deeper than the Reed Sea.

This is something you should ask sarathw. Sarathw asked for an explanation....not me. This thread was started as a request for an explanation....all I (and others) did was to try to give the explanation which was requested.

I've tried to broach this topic with sarathw but I am ignored.
chownah

No, it is not false perhaps it is a coincidence.
It may be something similar to Moses dividing the red sea story.
I believe in that story. Because I have been to a place you can walk to an island when it is low tides.

That misses the point then, the point being that Moses had God-given powers to defy the natural elements.

No, it is not false perhaps it is a coincidence.
It may be something similar to Moses dividing the red sea story.
I believe in that story. Because I have been to a place you can walk to an island when it is low tides.

That misses the point then, the point being that Moses had God-given powers to defy the natural elements.

Or that the Buddha could do this, "defy" the "natural" elements, on account of his own cultivation of ṛddhi, not because the Buddha happened to notice the river flowing differently and decided to take advantage of that.

What if the Buddha's bowl flowed against the stream as a literary echo of how the Buddha defies the "stream" of transmigrations. Would that make the story "false"?

It is naive, lacking faith, asked in bad faith, dependent on the definition of "faith" in question.

Perhaps this story is a parable.
Some say this story is a symbol of Buddha going against the accepted practices on those days.

Some would say that calling the story "a parable" is the same thing as saying that is it "false".

Calling a story or a parable true or false is a misrepresentation. Stories are not true or false...they are just stories. It is what the story brings to our minds and how we interpret it which contains any concept of trueness or falseness to be found.
chownah

I think the OP misunderstood the cleric and though that he was claiming that the river flowed "backward" here. A river flowing "backward" would carry the Buddha's bowl upstream. This still does not address the specification that the Buddha's bowl went against the stream of the river. It is an understandable mistake IMO. The documentary is somewhat unclear.

And yet several posters took it upon themselves to find a common-sensical explanation for how the Buddha's bowl could float against the stream. How come they did that?

Because it is the topic of discussion for this thread....now do you understand how come they do that?
chownah

Coëmgenu wrote:
What if the Buddha's bowl flowed against the stream as a literary echo of how the Buddha defies the "stream" of transmigrations. Would that make the story "false"?

I think it would be a common-sensical explanation of the story.

Is it? What makes it common-sensical? The underlying belief that the Buddha likely did not float around shooting fire & water out of his body because "we" (whoever that is) never seem to see people floating around performing such actions, or because the trees of the forest do not usually bow themselves down to the ground in prostration when a Dharma Master passes by?

Some people say and/or believe (or perceive, I suppose!) realized lamas do not touch the ground. They float ever-so-slightly above it. They will say that if you look really closely at X or Y YouTube video of them preaching, you can actually see this slight levitation. I have never spotted it, despite being shown it and having it allegedly pointed out to me by a "true believer".

Because it is the topic of discussion for this thread....now do you understand how come they do that?

As long as there exist alternative -- traditional, actually -- explanations of how come that bowl floated in the opposite direction, the scope of this topic is, obviously, wider than just trying to come up with common-sensical explanations.